Law, Business and Society 11th Edition by Tony McAdams

Exercise 71

Religion, libertarianism, and virtue provide crucial ethical lessons. Philosophers have further clarified ethical theory by defining two broad analytical systems, teleology and deontology, that capture much of our current understanding about how to engage in careful ethical analysis.
Teleological ethical systems (often referred to as consequentialist ethical systems) are concerned with the consequences, the results, of an act rather than the act itself. A teleological view of life involves ends, goals, and the ultimate good. Duty and obligation are subordinated to the production of what is good or desirable. For the teleologist/consequentialist, the end is primary and that end or result is the measure of the ethical quality of a decision or act.
To the deontologist, on the other hand, principle is primary and consequence is secondary or even irrelevant. Maximizing right rather than good is the deontological standard. The deontologist might well refuse to lie, as a matter of principle, even if lying would maximize good.
Deontology, derived from the Greek word meaning duty, is directed toward what ought to be, toward what is right. Similarly, deontology considers motives. For example, why a crime was committed may be more important than the actual consequences of the crime. Relationships among people are important from a deontological perspective primarily because they create duties. A father may be bound by duty to save his son from a burning building, rather than saving another person who could do more total good for society.
The distinction here is critical. Are we to guide our behavior by rational evaluation of the consequences of our acts, or according to duty and principle-that which ought to be Let's take a closer look at utilitarianism, the principal teleological ethical theory, and formalism, the principal deontological ethical theory.
Teleology
Utilitarianism In reaching an ethical decision, good is to be weighed against evil. A decision that maximizes the ratio of good over evil for all those concerned is the ethical course. Jeremy Bentham (1748 1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806 1873) were the chief intellectual forces in the development of utilitarianism. Their views and those of other utilitarian philosophers were not entirely consistent. As a result, at least two branches of utilitarianism have developed. According to act-utilitarianism, our goal is to identify the consequences of a particular act to determine whether it is right or wrong. Rule-utilitarianism requires us to follow those rules that generate the greatest value for society. Thus the rule-utilitarian may be forced to shun a particular act that would result in greater immediate good (punishing a guilty person whose constitutional rights have been violated) in favor of upholding a broader rule that results in the greater total good over time (maintaining constitutional principles by freeing the guilty person). In sum, the principle to be followed for the utilitarian is the greatest good for the greatest number. [For an extensive database exploring utilitarianism, see http://www.hedweb.com/philsoph/utillink.htm]
Deontology
Formalism The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724 1804) developed perhaps the most persuasive and fully articulated vision of ethics as measured not by consequences (teleology) but by the rightness of rules. In this formalistic view of ethics, the rightness of an act depends little (or, in Kant's view, not at all) on the results of the act. Kant believed in the key moral concept of "the goodwill." The moral person is a person of goodwill, and that person renders ethical decisions based on what is right, regardless of the consequences of the decision. Moral worth springs from one's decision to discharge one's duty. Thus the student who refuses to cheat on exams is morally worthy if his or her decision springs from duty, but morally unworthy if the decision is merely one born of self-interest, such as fear of being caught.
How does the person of goodwill know what is right Here Kant propounded the categorical imperative, the notion that every person should act on only those principles that he or she, as a rational person, would prescribe as universal laws to be applied to the whole of humankind. A moral rule is "categorical" rather than "hypothetical" in that its prescriptive force is independent of its consequences. The rule guides us independent of the ends we seek. Kant believed that every rational creature can act according to his or her categorical imperative because all such persons have "autonomous, self-legislating wills" that permit them to formulate and act on their own systems of rules. To Kant, what is right for one is right for all, and each of us can discover that "right" by exercising our rational faculties.
In March 2013 as Tiger Woods's golf game was recovering from a long period of poor performance (by his standards), Nike released an ad with Woods's picture and the caption "Winning Takes Care of Everything," a remark Woods reportedly made many times in reference to his golfing performance. Critics attacked Woods and Nike saying the ad implied that golf victories would cancel out the shortcomings and misconduct of Woods's past, including his failed marriage, repeated infidelities and generally perceived arrogant, rude behavior.
a. Is the ad an example of consequentialist or formalist thinking Explain.
b. In assessing the moral quality of an individual's life, can we properly weigh exemplary productivity against extensive wrongdoing Consider cyclist Lance Arm-strong, who has acknowledged having cheated by engaging in forbidden doping measures. Can we, nonetheless, consider Armstrong a "good person" in light of the enormous contribution he has made as an advocate for cancer research and as an inspiration to those who suffer from cancer Explain.
c. In your view, was Nike wrong to run the "Winning Takes Care of Everything" ad Explain.